PAM. 

SLUM, 


"(HI)?  flouirra  (That  J6?” 

❖ 


frrarljrb  by 

®Ij?  iRrowrpnb  t^nuinrb  (Hljanblrr  iKobbina 
Ulrrtor  of  tl)? 

(Eburrb  of  tlj?  ilnrarnation 
Nrro  fork  (Cily 
January  28,  191 7 


* 


ilrintpb  bg  Jlrrmissinn  fnr  Jrxnalp  Sistribultan 


“otyp  pmimra  (Eljat  Ir” 


* 

“Lei  erery  sow/  6e  in  subjection  to  the  higher  powers:  for 
there  is  no  power  but  of  God;  and  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained 
of  God.” — Romans  13  :i. 

This  text  has  often  been  a stumbling-block.  It  has  been 
used,  time  out  of  mind,  to  bolster  up  doctrines  repellent  to 
freedom,  doctrines  such  as  that  of  the  divine  right  of  kings 
and  the  passive  obedience  of  subjects.  Needless  to  say,  St. 
Paul  had  no  such  teaching  in  mind.  There  was  never  a sin- 
cerer  champion  than  he  of  human  freedom.  There  are  no 
writings  where  we  find  enunciated  with  more  passionate  con- 
viction the  views  concerning  liberty,  fraternity  and  equality 
which  are  the  foundation  stones  of  democratic  states.  What- 
ever St.  Paul  is  preaching,  we  may  be  sure  that  he  is  not 
preaching  anything  which  is  out  of  accordance  with  his  life- 
long principles  and  practice.  We  must  make  his  spirit  the 
criterion  by  which  to  judge  the  meaning  of  his  words. 

Taking  them  in  this  large  and  liberal  way,  the  Apostle’s 
meaning  becomes  clear.  What  he  is  talking  about  is  the 
Christian’s  duty  to  the  state,  to  civil  authority  in  general, 
and  specifically  to  the  authority  of  the  Roman  Empire.  What 
he  teaches  is  that  civil  government  is  a divine  appointment, 
and  that  disobedience  to  it,  when  unwarranted  by  conscience, 
involves  not  only  political  disloyalty  but  also  defiance  of  God. 
“The  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God.”  In  a general 
sense,  the  truth  of  this  saying  is  apparent.  In  a general  sense, 
the  Roman  Empire  was  a divine  ordinance.  It  maintained 
law  and  order  throughout  the  vast  extent  of  its  dominions. 
It  protected  property  and  person.  It  enforced  peace.  St. 
Paul  was  proud  of  his  Roman  citizenship,  and  had  reason 
to  be  grateful  for  it.  On  more  than  one  occasion  it  was  the 
instrument  by  which  he  was  protected  from  mob  violence, 


his  life  saved  and  his  ministry  prolonged  So  he  inculcates 
a spirit,  a spirit  not  of  blind  and  servile  submission,  but  of 
wide-awake  and  conscientious  obedience.  The  Christian  is 
to  be  a loyal  subject,  a punctual  tax-payer,  and  a good  citizen. 
Wherever  his  conscience  permits,  he  is  to  be  found  upholding 
the  civil  power,  not  opposing  it. 

Is  not  St.  Paul  right?  Are  not  these  things  one  aspect 
of  religion?  Which  is  Christian,  the  furious  mob  of  lynchers 
storming  at  the  doors  of  the  gaol  to  get  at  the  convicted  offend- 
er, or  the  Governor  who  stands  between  them  and  their  prey, 
and  tells  them  they  must  lynch  him  first  ? The  men  who  stand 
for  law  and  for  the  processes  of  law  are  the  true  patriots  both 
of  the  secular  commonwealth  and  of  that  spiritual  common- 
wealth which  we  term  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

I think  it  evident  from  the  connection  that  this,  in  a 
general  way,  is  what  the  Apostle  had  in  mind.  For  notice 
the  connection.  His  precept  of  obedience  to  the  powers  that 
be  comes  immediately  after  his  prohibition  of  private  ven- 
geance. “Dearly  beloved,  avenge  not  yourselves,  but  rather 
give  place  unto  wrath.”  Here  we  see  what  is,  perhaps,  the 
greatest  of  the  functions  of  the  state.  The  state  prohibits 
the  wreaking  of  private  vengeance.  It  steps  between,  and 
takes  the  administration  of  justice  into  its  own  hands.  In  a 
lawless  community  every  man  is  his  own  avenger.  If  he  is 
wronged,  or  if  he  imagines  himself  wronged,  he  takes  the 
matter  up  himself  and  obtains  such  satisfaction  as  he  is  able. 
The  disadvantage  of  this  personal  method  of  settlement  is 
obvious.  There  is  no  place  in  it  for  justice.  Quarrels  are 
settled  quite  without  reference  to  right  or  wrong,  and  solely 
upon  the  basis  of  superior  strength.  Might  determines  right- 
Might  even  attempts  to  determine  questions  of  conscience- 
The  Jews,  for  example,  had  a dispute  with  St.  Paul  about  a 
question  of  theology.  Not  being  able  to  convince  him  by 
their  arguments,  they  attempted  to  establish  the  validity  of 
their  position  by  murdering  him,  as  they  had  murdered  his 
predecessor  St.  Stephen.  No  wonder  that  he  felt  grateful 
to  the  calm,  impassive  civil  authority  which  took  him  under 
its  protection  and  guaranteed  to  him  a fair  trial ! The  powers 
that  be  were  ordained  to  put  a stop  to  terrorism,  to  anarchy, 
to  forcible  settlement  of  questions  which  ought  not  to  be 


decided  by  force.  To  this  extent  at  least  he  felt  that  they 
were  ordained  of  God. 

And  to  this  extent  at  least,  and  no  doubt  to  a very  much 
greater  extent,  civil  authority  is  ordained  of  God,  and  human 
government  possesses  divine  sanctions.  We  ought  therefore 
to  do  what  St.  Paul  did.  We  ought  to  recognize  the  fact 
with  appreciation,  and  with  feelings  of  obligation.  It  is  a 
very  great  thing,  greater  than  any  of  us  realizes,  to  live  in  an 
orderly  society,  and  to  posssess  the  blessings  of  stable  govern- 
ment. It  is  not  a little  thing  that  our  persons  are  protected, 
that  our  property  cannot  be  taken  away  from  us  without  due 
process  of  law,  that  we  can  go  with  confidence  and  security 
upon  our  lawful  occasions.  The  powers  that  be  are  upon 
the  side  of  order.  They  stand  for  the  administration  of  jus- 
tice. They  stand  for  the  public  welfare,  and  for  the  public 
peace.  When  justice  miscarries,  when  public  welfare  is  en- 
dangered, when  public  peace  is  disturbed,  it  is  usually  through 
no  fault  of  the  civil  authority,  but  in  spite  of  its  efforts  to 
maintain  order.  So  we  owe  to  it  not  only  recognition,  but 
also  loyal  obedience.  We  ought  to  pay  our  taxes  cheerfully. 
We  ought  to  assume  willingly  all  the  duties  of  citizenship,  jury 
duty  included.  We  ought  to  obey  the  law  which  prohibits 
undue  speed  for  motor  vehicles,  even  where  we  are  not  re- 
strained by  the  suspicion  that  a policeman  on  a motor  cycle 
may  be  following  close  behind! 

We  ought  also  to  be  restrained  and  decent  in  our  criticism 
of  public  officials.  This  may  sound  like  a counsel  of  perfec- 
tion, but  in  a democracy  like  ours  it  is  sorely  needed.  The 
unmeasured  and  unmerited  abuse  which  is  heaped  upon  public 
men,  out  of  the  spite  and  bitterness  of  partisan  spirit,  is  one 
of  the  scandals  of  democracy.  It  keeps  I do  not  know  how 
many  sensitive  and  honorable  men  from  entering  upon  public 
life.  It  makes  life  a burden  for  many  who  do  enter  it,  often 
from  highest  and  most  disinterested  motives.  I know  of  few 
things  more  unpatriotic  than  to  cultivate  a temper  of  deliber- 
ate hostility  toward  those  who  are  in  positions  of  authority, 
to  make  up  one’s  mind  in  advance  that  what  they  say  must 
be  wrong  because  it  is  they  who  say  it,  and  that  what  they 
do  must  be  opposed  because  it  is  they  who  do  it.  This  is  the 
very  spirit  of  self-will  and  anarchy  against  which  St.  Paul’s 


injunction  is  levelled.  It  needs  only  a little  reflection  to  per- 
ceive that  if  such  a temper  were  to  become  general,  it  would 
make  short  shrift  for  all  effective  government. 

So  much  for  the  positive  bearing  of  St.  Paul’s  injunction. 
Now  for  a glance  at  one  of  its  larger  and  more  far-reaching 
implications. 

“The  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God.”  They  are 
not,  then,  self-originated.  They  are  not  self-determined. 
This  is  no  doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of  kings,  or  of  the  abso- 
lute authority  of  the  state.  Far  from  being  above  good  and 
evil,  as  a vicious  modern  philosophy  proclaims  it,  the  state, 
the  civil  authority,  is  ordained  to  minister  to  human  welfare 
as  the  instrument  of  the  Divine  Will,  and  must  be  judged 
accordingly,  and,  where  need  is  evident,  must  be  shaped  and 
altered  accordingly.  If,  for  example,  the  misting  forms  of 
political  organization  are  carrying  out  the  purposes  for  which 
they  were  ordained,  if  they  are  administering  justice,  main- 
taining law  and  order,  safeguarding  the  rights  and  liberties 
of  their  citizens,  and  making  due  provision  for  the  rights  and 
liberties  and  interests  of  other  states,  well  and  good.  But  if, 
through  some  inherent  defect,  they  are  unable  to  execute 
these  aims,  then  the  defect  must  be  brought  to  light  and  cor- 
rected. We  know  that  at  the  present  time  some  grave  defect 
exists.  We  know  the  defect  to  be  so  grave  that  it  has  plunged 
half  the  world  into  a gigantic  war.  Now  is  the  time  for  Chris- 
tian men  to  use  not  only  their  hearts  and  sympathies  but  also 
to  use  their  brains,  to  think  with  all  the  power  and  lucidity 
that  God  has  given  them,  and  to  formulate,  even  if  for  the 
time  being  only  on  paper,  some  new  order,  some  new  type 
of  political  organization,  some  revolutionary  change  in  the 
social  structure,  which  shall  enable  the  powers  that  be  to 
carry  out  more  perfectly  the  great,  orderly,  pacific  purposes 
for  which  they  are  ordained  of  God.  For  as  the  world  is 
constituted,  the  vision  inevitably  must  precede  the  realiza- 
tion, and  the  formulation  of  far-reaching  plans  for  concerted 
action  is  the  indispensable  prelude  to  their  accomplishment. 

Let  me  give  a single  illustration  of  this  principle,  taken 
from  our  own  national  history.  At  the  dawn  of  our  history 
as  a nation,  the  powers  that  be,  represented  by  the  civil 
authorities  in  the  several  States,  were  not  co-ordinated.  They 


were  not  welded  together  by  a perception  of  their  common 
interests.  The  thirteen  newly  constituted  States  were  united 
by  their  common  hatred  of  Great  Britain,  but  they  disliked 
one  another  only  a shade  or  two  less.  We  read  American 
history,  and  we  find  that  at  this  early  period  Connecticut  and 
Pennsylvania  were  at  swords’  points  over  the  possession  of 
the  valley  of  Wyoming.  New  York  and  New  Hampshire 
had  a similar  dispute  over  the  possession  of  the  Green  Moun- 
tains. The  City  of  New  York  “obliged  every  Yankee  sloop 
and  every  New  Jersey  market  boat  to  pay  entrance  fees  and 
obtain  clearances  at  the  custom-house,  just  as  was  done  by 
ships  coming  from  London  and  Hamburg.’’*  Connecticut 
business  men  retaliated  by  suspending  commercial  intercourse 
with  New  York.  The  United  States  were  united  only  in 
name,  and  to  all  appearance  they  were  drifting  into  anarchy. 

Then  we  know  what  happened.  After  the  revolution 
which  secured  our  liberty,  there  came  a bloodless  revolution 
which  secured  our  unity.  There  were  thirteen  weak,  jealous, 
quarrelsome,  nearly  bankrupt  communities,  armed  against 
each  other  with  menacing  force,  and  with  tariffs  that  were 
meant  for  protection  and  that  resulted  in  prostration.  They 
buried  their  antipathies,  pooled  their  resources,  and  created 
one  great,  sovereign,  solvent  federation.  I do  not  think 
that  any  one  can  fail  to  perceive  that  this  coming  together 
of  the  States  was  providential.  The  nation  could  stand,  as 
the  States  severally  were  not  able  to  stand,  for  law  and  order. 
The  nation  could  be,  in  a far  wider  and  deeper  sense  than  the 
several  States  could  possibly  be,  the  minister  of  God. 

Now  I do  not  think  that  it  requires  any  undue  strain 
upon  our  imaginations  to  see  that  there  is  a certain  parallelism 
between  our  present  situation  and  that  of  our  American  fore- 
fathers, and  that  their  solution  of  their  problem  may  cast 
some  light  upon  our  solution  of  ours.  The  critical  period  in 
United  States  history  was  the  period  just  subsequent  to  the  War 
of  Independence.  The  critical  period  in  the  history  of  modern 
civilization  will  be  the  period  just  after  the  close  of  the  Euro- 
pean war.  The  task  then  was  to  find  some  way  in  which  the 
States  could  be  leagued  together  and  prevented  from  drifting 
into  anarchy.  The  task  now  will  be  to  find  some  way  in  which 

•John  Fislce:  Critical  Period  of  United  States  History. 


the  powers  can  be  leagued  together — not,  of  course,  under  one 
central  government:  that  is  neither  possible  nor  in  the  least 
desirable — but  in  some  fashion  which  will  enable  them  to  take 
concerted  action  wherever  common  interests  are  concerned. 
Liberals  the  world  over  are  giving  earnest  attention  to  this 
gigantic  problem.  No  less  than  thirty  solutions  of  it  have 
already  been  proposed.  It  is  said  that  these  projects  are 
idealistic.  Is  that  a condemnation  of  them?  The  proposal 
to  create  an  American  nation  was  idealistic  at  the  time.  At 
least  within  the  Christian  Church,  proposals  of  this  character 
can  scarcely  be  condemned  for  any  such  objection.  The 
purpose  for  which  the  Church  of  Christ  exists  is  to  make 
ideals  real. 

The  real  difficulty  lies  in  another  quarter.  A World’s 
Court,  a League  of  Nations,  a League  to  Enforce  Peace,  is 
just  as  strong,  or  just  as  weak,  as  the  public  convictions  which 
it  registers.  Where  there  is  a worldwide  will  to  peace,  the 
will  will  find  the  way.  Where  there  is  the  will  to  war,  no 
political  machinery,  however  ingeniously  contrived,  can  per- 
manently prevent  war.  It  may  retard  it.  It  may  put  ob- 
stacles in  the  way  of  it.  It  may  make  it  costly  to  the  agressor. 
That  is  the  most  that  its  advocates  can  claim  for  it,  and  the 
most  that  its  sober  advocates  do  claim.  Without  the  right 
spirit,  the  spirit  of  forbearance  and  of  international  good  will, 
machinery  of  this  sort  might  even  degenerate  into  an  obstacle 
to  peace.  We  have  an  historic  instance  in  the  ill-fated  Holy 
Alliance.  The  Holy  Alliance  was  formed  almost  exactly 
one  hundred  years  ago,  at  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars, 
under  the  most  hopeful  auspices,  and  having  as  its  definite 
object  the  preservation  of  everlasting  peace.  We  are  all 
familiar  with  the  sequel.  In  the  hands  of  Prince  Metternich 
it  speedily  became  an  instrument  of  tyranny  and  repression. 
It  crushed  popular  revolutions  in  Naples,  Piedmont  and 
France.  It  restored  absolutism  in  its  most  offensive  form 
to  the  throne  of  Spain.  It  attempted  to  widen  the  sphere  of 
its  operations  to  the  New  World,  and  to  bring  back  Spain’s 
revolted  colonies  to  their  old  allegiance.  Then  our  Munroe 
Doctrine  was  formulated  as  a counterblast  to  these  pretensions, 
and  the  Munroe  Doctrine  saved  the  Western  Hemisphere 
from  the  enforcement  of  peace  at  the  cost  of  liberty. 


What  we  need,  then,  is  to  go  farther  afield  than  any 
political  machinery  can  take  us,  even  so  promising  a political 
device  as  a League  to  Enforce  Peace.  The  origins  of  war  and 
peace  lie  in  the  hearts  of  the  peoples  of  the  world.  They  are 
to  be  found  in  their  general  attitude  toward  one  another,  in 
motives  of  good  will  cr  in  motives  of  aggression,  in  carefully 
cultivated  friendship  or  in  thoughtlessly  provoked  hostility. 
A nation’s  real  influence,  its  true  position,  do  not  rest  solely, 
and  perhaps  not  even  chiefly,  upon  force.  They  rest  chiefly, 
I think,  upon  imponderable  things.  They  rest  upon  what, 
for  want  of  a closer  definition,  we  may  term  the  national 
character.  It  is  the  character  of  a country,  its  reputation 
for  honor,  for  high  ideals,  for  fair  and  generous  dealing, 
which  in  all  difficult  and  delicate  negotiations  ultimately 
determine  the  measure  of  its  usefulness. 

Now  negatively,  this  should  mean  to  us  national  self  re- 
straint. A nation  which  is  cherishing  large  aims  of  service 
and  of  mediation  cannot  afford  to  show  itself  boorish.  We 
ought  accordingly  to  find  some  way  to  curb  the  glib  and  ir- 
responsible demagogues  who  are  continually  jumping  up  and 
predicting  foreign  invasion.  One  day  it  is  to  be  by  the  Japanese, 
the  next  day  by  the  British,  the  next  day  by  the  Germans. 
They  change  with  every  wind  that  blows,  like  the  weather- 
cocks they  are.  But  these  things  do  not  read  well  when  they 
are  reported  by  a foreign  press.  Suspicion  engenders  sus- 
picion, and  threats  are  encountered  by  threats. 

We  ought  also  to  find  some  way  to  restrain  the  periodicals 
which  resort  to  the  same  tactics  in  order  to  promote  their 
sales  upon  the  day  of  rest  and  gladness.  I think  that  it  would 
be  an  excellent  thing  if  business  men  were  to  wait  upon  the 
publishers  of  jingo  newspapers  and  point  out  to  them  that 
all  this  wild  and  incendiary  talk  is  not  only  bad  morality  but 
also  bad  business,  and  that  business  men  can  scarcely  be 
expected  to  encourage  the  circulation  of  periodicals  which 
are  insulting  their  customers,  whether  their  customers  live 
at  home  or  abroad. 

And  then,  too,  we  ought  to  watch  most  carefully  all  the 
little  bills  which  are  introduced  into  Congress  for  the  express 
purpose  of  insulting  some  foreign  power.  It  is  a great  deal 


easier  to  head  these  things  off  at  the  start  than  to  wait  for 
the  State  Department  to  adjust  and  to  explain. 

Positively,  what  we  can  do  to  provide  the  right  atmos- 
phere for  future  developments  is  to  exhibit  national  courtesy. 
Solomon  tells  us  that  to  have  friends  a man  must  show  himself 
friendly.  That  is  exactly  as  true  of  nations  as  of  individuals. 
To  have  friends  a nation  must  show  itself  friendly.  It  was  a 
courteous  thing  to  call  the  Argentine  Republic,  Brazil  and 
Chile  into  conference  with  us  concerning  affairs  in  Mexico. 
It  did  more  to  promote  good  relations  with  Latin  America 
than  anything  which  has  happened  in  a hundred  years.  It 
would  be  a courteous  thing  if  we  were  to  go  farther,  and 
settle  the  just  claims  of  the  Colombian  Republic.  Nothing  is 
to  be  gained  by  dickering  and  delay. 

And  far  beyond  mere  courtesy,  there  lies  open  to  us,  in 
Europe’s  immeasurable  need,  an  immeasurable  opportunity 
for  kindness.  It  has  been  suggested  that  in  addition  to  gifts 
which  come  from  private  sources  we  should  make  a great 
public  appropriation  to  help  meet  the  need.  There  is  pre- 
cedent for  such  action.  Even  if  there  were  not,  we  could  create 
a precedent.  A public  gift  of  one  hundred  million  dollars  to 
relieve  distress  within  the  French  Republic  would  be  a fitting 
recognition  of  the  service  that  France  rendered  to  us  at  the 
very  beginning  of  our  national  history.  Given  to  a single 
nation  to  which  we  are  bound  in  spirit  by  a thousand  cherished 
and  subtle  sympathies,  it  would  make  for  international  good 
will.  It  would  be  one  slight  but  definite  indication  that  a 
new  day  is  dawning  upon  the  world,  that  a new  way  is  being 
discovered  for  nations  to  regard  one  another  and  to  deal  with 
one  another,  and  that  behind  the  noble  definition  which  the 
President  has  made  of  American  ideals  and  principles,  there 
lies  an  eagerness,  a generosity,  a readiness  to  serve  and  give, 
which  is  in  keeping  with  the  loftiest  traditions  of  the  land 
we  hold  most  dear. 


